Concord Village Giving Associated the Boot?

no chance of a WF there. not in a million yeards.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 10:51 AM

isn't this how markets work?

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 10:55 AM

God damn those buildings are ugly! Why anybody would buy into those crap buildings and willingly live there is beyond me. How depressing.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 10:59 AM

A Garden of Eatin would be nice in that spot.

Wish one would come to 7th Ave in the Slope as well...

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 11:12 AM

can they just demolish those buildings? We'll worry about the supermarket later.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 11:17 AM

If you want fabulous acres of supermarket aisles stocked with every imaginable product you gotta shop in the burbs. It's one of those things. And the prices out there are so shockingly low compared to the city. It makes owning a car a necessity, otherwise you're stuck with grannie's little rolly grocery walker/cart bumpity-bumping your way home over the broken Brooklyn pavement.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 11:19 AM

I'll stick with Associated, if the other option is the burbs.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 11:21 AM

That really is a skanky little Associated. It would be nice to see something cleaner and better run.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 11:34 AM

I agree, when I moved to New York a few years ago I was shocked by how mediocre most grocery stores are, even in most of Manhattan. But now I'm very happy about my local supermarket: Foodtown on Fulton in Bed-Stuy. No need to go to the suburbs. I occasionally go to Fairway in Red Hook and various small stores for special things, but that Foodtown has most of what I need. It is well stocked, clean, and the staff is relatively competent and polite. So yes, running a good grocery store in Brooklyn IS possible.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 11:43 AM

This location is very inconvenient to anyone except residents of Concord Village. I assume they are the principal users. Bigger chains may be reluctant to open a branch in such a closed-loop location.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 11:49 AM

Bigger chains want a bigger space.
The size is comparible to a large bodega.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 12:09 PM

Why does it look more like a bodega than a grocery store? Ugly complex and I pray a bunch of fires destroys those fugly buildings.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 12:10 PM

Concord Village was what planners and architects foresaw as the future of the city in the 1960's. It is a very typical and well-designed example of its type. In essence it is a small-scale version of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village in Manhattan. It was meant to provide attractive and clean housing for the moderate income middle class. I assume the insults on this blog come from know-nothings. These buildings are as much a part of the fabric and history of our city as are the brownstones and walkup apartments in the nearby historic districts.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 12:28 PM

That complex is hideous. Can we get some sort of emminent domain project going and rip these pieces of trash down?

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 12:29 PM

Concord Village proves beyond any doubt that the problem with city housing projects is not one of architecture or design but rather a problem with too many of the residents.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 12:38 PM

It's interesting...I bet the person on here denouncing these couldn't even afford to buy one of the studio units.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 12:46 PM

Don't worry about the haters.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 12:51 PM

The (relatively) new "Fine Fare" on Kingston between St. John's and Lincoln Place is very nice and replaced a dirty, decrepit Key Food (or some other name-brand-type of supermarket, I don't recall the name) that had been there since I've been in Crown Heights. Things are looking up.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:09 PM

12:38:

Not the people who live there, but the management. As financial support for public housing has declined, so has management, maintenance, and security. Park, Fifth, and Central Park West high-rises would be terrible with similiar cutbacks.

Concord Village and nearby public housing projects have the same basic diagrams as expensive "luxury" housing: tall buildings with elevators. The difference is that they stand in open spaces instead of being lined up along the street. (Ever look at the elevations of "luxury" housing? Pretty boring, except that you don't notice it as much because they're not free-standing objects.)

High-rise housing can work, but only if it's well-maintained. And Concord Village is well-maintained.

U. Designer

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:24 PM

12:38

Get a clue. While Concord Village may have been built for the moderate (ahem--working class,) that is not the case now. Parents of friends of mine have sold their well located brownstones to arrivistes such as yourselves to BUY SPACIOUS apartments on WELL TENDED grounds in a well located area.

Perhaps you do not have the resources for such transactions?

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:41 PM

1:24,
I assume you are making the point that Concord Village is a private complex not public housing and therein lies the difference in building maintenance?
That is a bit of a facile arguement. There are plenty of badly run private buildings and well run public ones. But Concord Village seems to be maintaines well by the coop shareholders and they have leafy parking areas -something that even the rich brownstoners do not have.
This era did priduce very banal housing though. I wonder why the windows were so tiny? Probably security, (read: black people live nearby).

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:43 PM

1:24 - what are you talking about??? Concord Village and NYCHA are the same basic building design - AND they are also similarly situated to the street (some buildings are aligned with the street and others are internal) - this is also the same make-up as Parkchester, Sty-Town etc.....

None of these complexes were designed as "luxury" housing - they were designed for Middle Income people.

The fact that the same exact design can either be "luxury" housing or slums proves that the problem isnt one of design.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:47 PM

I read 12:38's comments completely differently. I believe the statement being made is that Concord Village is architecturally similar to NYCHA developments, a statement reinforced by some of the subsequent comments, but doesn't have the same problems and therefore serves as a rebuttal to the architectural determinism often made about public housing. Or else I just spend too much time in grad' school.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:51 PM

12.46, aesthetic appreciation is not the sole province of those earning over 60K a year..

Anyone who can't see these are fugly needs their head examined.

The wrecking ball please.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:53 PM

is the board of concord village tough to pass?

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:56 PM

1:51 - thank you for summarizing exactly what I was TRYING to say - except far clearer.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 1:57 PM

1:37 and 1:41:

Actually. 12:38 probably was paying Concord Village a compliment, differentiating it from public housing because of its "better" residents, overlooking the role of management, maintenance, and security (and the money to cover them) in high-rise housing's success.

This thread prompted me to check out CV's website. One of the two-bedroom units is especially nice (foyer, dining area, bedroom wing) and could compete with "luxury" condos on the Upper East Side. Clearly, this project was built for middle-income people working in Downtown Brooklyn, while nearby public housing was directed at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. (Also check the limestone swag around the lobby entrances -- a clear give away.)

Similar to most everything else in NYC, there's a hierarchy to "projects," each directed at some segment of the "market" from low-income to upper-middle class according to its depth of subsidy. (Concord Village, Washington Square Village, Park West Village, and Peter Cooper Village were urban renewal "projects," their designation as "villages" rather than "houses" signifying their higher income tenantry.)

I don't follow its prices, but I suspect that CV's lucky location is pushing its market up and up. If it's always been a co-op, I hope the little old folks who held on when Brooklyn was rough are able to cash in. But as an urban renewal project that was able to charge below "fair" market prices to the original residents, it should have a flip tax to help support other affordable housing initiatives.

1:47:

Read my earlier comment again. I was contrasting Concord Village and public housing projects' "tower-in-the-park" design with "luxury" housing that is lined up along the street. I agree, CV and public housing's site planning is virtually the same. And both of their building diagrams' are the same as high-rise "luxury" housing.

U. Designer

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 2:17 PM

It was buildings like these, designed basically as file cabinets for people, tha turned so many people on to brownstones and historic buildings as an alternative to what the best and brightest were designing for "our own good". Historic preservation was off the radar screens of the guys designing cities at that time. We forget how subversive preservation was then. I'm sure these buildings are nice places to live, sort of, but they are so ugly and soul-numbing. Soviet style housing for the masses. So incompatible in basic ways with the American spirit of individuality and the pursuit of a better life. It was an interesting period of time and it produced some of the very worst urban architecture. I agree that these complexes are important historically and that they mark a certain point in history, but I don't like them.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 2:59 PM

Its a nice utilitarian place to put the homeless.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:10 PM

"your comment is so snobbish"

I know
aren't anonymous blogs great?

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:35 PM

2:59:

People moved to places like these in "pursuit of a "better life" because Brooklyn's old neighborhoods were considered so bad at the time.

And what did they get? Fresh, modern apartments; playgrounds for the kids; and parking for their cars. Not "file cabinets" but in-town alternatives to the suburbs.

And look at what similar buildings on the Lower East Side are getting now: Close to a million dollars for family-sized apartments moving off the Mitchell-Lama roles, bought by "hip" young professionals (the kinds who buy in Brownstoner's Brooklyn!).

Your and my choice? Obviously not. But durable housing, well-located, with a bit of landscape. (And room sizes comparable -- if not bigger than -- new condos.)

As long as New York isn't all built this way (and now that urban renewal is dead, it won't be), Concord Village and others like it have their place in the city.

(And by the way, 1:53 (#2), I'm old enough to remember when brownstones were considered worse than "fugly," and not just by Robert Moses, but by people "in pursuit of a better life," usually in the suburbs.)

U. Designer

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:37 PM

FYI, A hell of a lot of people, maybe even most in America, still think that Brooklyn brownstones are "fugly".
Love of these crumbly old granny museums is a locally acquired taste, like fried grasshoppers or horse meat.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:47 PM

3:47:

Ha ha!

I just pictured my grandmother eating grasshoppers and horse meat in the family brownstone on Carroll Street.

She must be spinning in her grave!

(Although they probably did serve grass hoppers at some point at the Montauk Club, back when French food was the rage. And wasn't horse meat eaten during World War I?)

U. Designer

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 3:58 PM

I don't agree that most people think that Brownstones are ugly - but I do think many people (correctly) think that while pretty on the outside - a 125yr old house, that is narrow, has tons of stairs (making it even narrower), which are generally dark and often have strange layouts are not the way to spend 2M on a home.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 4:04 PM

The French like their horse meat;
the Chinese, their fried grasshoppers;
Brooklynites like their chocolate-colored
rowhouses, narrow and homogenous, like the fine folks who built them.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 4:07 PM

4:04:

Get thee from Brooklyn! (Or at least Brownstoner!)

U. Designer

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 4:10 PM

I wouldn't call irish navvies "narrow"

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 4:14 PM

I didn't mean literally "built them" I meant for whom they were built. The poor laborers who actually built these houses probably lived in underground caves described in the "Gangs of New York".

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 4:44 PM

The site of the possible new grocery is very busy and will grow in traffic with Mr. Brooklyn across the street and the new downtown. While C.V . buildings are not beautiful the gardens are. Our doorman are great and our gym is a wonderful amenity. This is a diverse community of professionals.As of late we have had an influx of families. The renovations are impressive and many families have purchased more than one apartment. This is a lovey community and a wonderful place to live.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 5:49 PM

The site of the possible new grocery is very busy and will grow in traffic with Mr. Brooklyn across the street and the new downtown. While C.V . buildings are not beautiful the gardens are. Our doorman are great and our gym is a wonderful amenity. This is a diverse community of professionals.As of late we have had an influx of families. The renovations are impressive and many families have purchased more than one apartment. This is a lovey community and a wonderful place to live.

Posted by: guest at February 13, 2008 5:57 PM

5:57pm
People don't care who lives here or what their jobs are and that quite frankly is irrevelant to just about everyone except you. People are voicing that the buildings are ugly, plain and simple.

If you can't admit that your buildings are ugly then you are lying to everyone here and to yourself.

Posted by: guest at February 14, 2008 10:21 AM

what a snob

Posted by: guest at February 14, 2008 4:38 PM

ugly but selling for big bucks- you bet

Posted by: guest at February 14, 2008 4:39 PM

According to someone on the board, "I don't know where this rumor started. We did go through a commercial broker to see who and what else was out there. This is clearly a small store and we are demanding a high level of service -- telephone orders and deliveries to Concord Village residents.

"I think Whole Foods took a look, but it was too small for that type of operation. We are now reviewing a draft lease with the current operator."

Okay, is everyone happy?

-- Spy X

Posted by: guest at February 15, 2008 12:07 AM

It's all relative. I moved here from Staten Island 23 years ago after my divorce. I was born and grew up in Manhattan. This is the best place I've lived during my 65 years. I have a parking spot. A roof deck to relax on and enjoy the great views. A spacious one bedroom apartment. Reasonable maintenance. Well cared for and safe grounds. And most importantly a diverse community of nice people.

Posted by: guest at February 15, 2008 11:22 AM

I am a Concord Village resident, and reading the above comments has been really entertaining. Amazing how mean-spirited some people can be in expressing their opinions, and how resolutely the ignorant make sweeping statements about something they clearly don't know much about. The buildings ARE ugly from the outside, but to hope they are burned down? Get a grip! So here is my two cents: Concord Village was all rental units until the coop conversion in 1978-1980. The rents were rather high at that time, not high end, but certainly not lower middle income, either. The buildings are indeed very ugly, city-planning utalitarian, project-boxy, ugly. They look like projects, and as others have pointed out, that is exactly what Stuyvesant Town looks like from the FDR drive. So when someone suggested I look there for an apartment I wasn't thrilled at the idea.

However, I still went to look at the apartments and found that they had great layouts, some had fantastic views, and even the smallest apartments had more room than others elsewhere. The complex is safe, people are very friendly, doormen are great and take a personal interest in helping the residents out if needed. The make-up of Concord Village was diverse long before it became politically correct to be so. The grounds are nicely landscaped, and you can sit outside on the benches, read, watch the squirrels and birds (more than just pigeons) run around as well as our resident cat population. Once inside the complex, it is quieter than you'd expect and there is a tranquility that does not exist for lots of Manhattan high rises. In the morning I hear birds calling, not traffic, and in the spring summer the smell of freshly mowed grass is not a typical thing for a NYC apartment dweller to have wafting through the window. At night we hear crickets. There are outdoor parking spaces. I have friends who live on the Upper East Side in equally ugly buildings, who pay far more in maintenance or rent, whose neighbors are snotty and don't say good morning to one another. Their apartments are much smaller than mine and the kitchens are like closets. They have no park-like grounds to stroll about on, play with their kids on, or pull chairs in a circle for an informal outdoor chat with neighbors. The trees bloom in the spring, and the air smells good. We Concord Villagers vote at a polling place on the premises, are right across the street from the Main Post Office, down the block from the courts (so can eat lunch at home when on jury duty!) have easy access within 1-3 blocks to the trains (A, C,F,2,3,4,5, N, R etc.) and numerous buses, are right at the entrance to the Bklyn Bridge so can walk across (handy when there is a strike or power outage!, and are two blocks away from the NY Public Library (the Business Branch). We've a gym on the premises. It is a very short walk to DUMBO, the main part of Bklyn Heights, the farmer's market at Borough Hall, to downtown Bklyn. There's so much more but those things alone beats almost every la-di-dah complex elsewhere, even those whose buildings are not "fugly".

Yes the buildings ARE very ugly! But the insides are not, and the people are pretty laid back, friendly, and actually speak to one another. There is a real community feel, and it is great to have such a diverse mix of retirees, families, young professionals, working class folks, etc. We had an actor living in our building for years until he passed away. All of us mesh nicely together and actually acknowledge each other's presence. This is very different from the atmosphere I've seen in lots of other NYC high rise complexes.

About brownstownes. I am a native Brooklynite and I don't find them attractive at all, in general. There are a few exceptions in Bklyn Heights. 3:47's remark about them being crumbly old granny museums was hysterical and on point. I remember a time when brownstones were not the yuppie rage that they are now. But the point is, "to each his own". Why some blogs get so insulting and vehement is beyond me. The beauty of NYC is that there are plenty of different types of fugly for every fugly taste. Beauty (or lack thereof is in the eye of the beholder). And yes, Concord Village buildings are ugly but their exteriors do not represent the quality of their surroundings, interiors, or residents.

Associated is a pit, not clean, their food is not fresh, many of the employees are not the nicest to deal with. They've gotten some black marks a few times from the Board of Health. It is always busy, and the person who wrote that only CV residents shop there is not aware of the high volume from the nearby schools and the college across the street. It may be convenient but I refuse to shop there because it is not pleasant to do so and the food quality is often questionable.

So, this was one CV resident's point of view, thrown out there for the haters as well as the people who actually posted articulate, thoughtful statements.

Posted by: guest at February 15, 2008 1:18 PM

What a strange thread. The Internet is a marvelous creature, allowing Smarts and Not-so-smarts alike their say. No matter what blog I read, whether about politics or real estate or cities, there always seems to be someone who posts for no other reason than to rile people up. It's probably fun for them, and while they're sometimes fun to read, they ahve the net effect of lowering the quality of public dialogue that the Internet is supposed to inspire. It takes everyone off topic and people take the obvious bait and respond to offenses. I'm all for free speech, so you'll never see me suggest a post be taken down. But it's a shame people don't respect the responsibilities that come with their free speech. Oh well. I guess that's part of what makes our beautiful country so intriguing.

My wife and I, professionals both, recently moved into Concord Village and have been extremely impressed. We knew someone who lived here before so we weren't surprised, but the value seems hard to beat if you want to stay in the city, have good schools, be in a safe neighborhood, close to subways, beautiful walks, etc. The buildings' exterior, to my eyes, are neither hideous nor beautiful, certainly nothing to brag about, but the overall atmosphere is great. And the apartments are fantastic for NYC. How odd that someone would joke repeatedly about demolishing/burning them down. I suspect, given their high placement on the blog responses, that these people are so bored at work all they do is troll blogs looking for new opportunities to bless us masses with their brilliance.

As for Associated, I wouldn't mourn the loss. All it's really good for are last-minute packaged items. Peas and Pickles, Gristedes and Garden of Eden are 4 to 6 minute walks away.

Posted by: guest at February 19, 2008 4:46 PM

I am also a concord village resident currently living in a studio in the 225 Adams Building. While I am considering moving from here this year, Concord Village has been a wonderful place to not only live but to have plunked down money. The place is well maintained, people are friendly, I have always felt safe, and aside from it being a bit isolated from retail, it's located in what I consider the perfect location: at the foot of the brooklyn and manhattan bridges, near every major train and busline and convenient to Brooklyn Heights, Dumbo, Fort Greene and Boerum Hill. It's time to sell and buy something a bit larger but CV has been a great place to live.

Posted by: guest at March 27, 2008 9:56 AM

I just purchased a one bedroom on a very high floor in one of the CV buildings. I must say, I was a bit apprehensive when I first saw the buildings as well, but after living here for about 6 months now (after a lengthy renovation) I am so ecstatic about my purchase. The comment from Feb 15th posted by the Cv resident who speaks of hearing the crickets and birds is so right on. After living in Hell's Kitchen in a beautiful high rise on the Hudson for 4 years, I decided to stop burning money and purchase. What luck I had - my one-bedroom is 3 times the size as my old apartment, and I was able to gut renovate and completely change the layout. I have a gorgeous, huge kitchen with stainless steel appliances, limestone floors and backsplash and an island that is open to my living room. All of this is lined by a wall of windows which overlooks the city skyline. And even better yet, it is true that I leave my windows open at night and on the weekends, and I feel as though I am in the suburbs, you can actually hear nature and there is not a drop of city noise, yet I look out my window, and have million dollar city views. Everyone who renovates here is sublimely happy. I have so much room, my quality of life has just drastically changed since moving here. ANd the very best is our rooftops - they were recently renovated and we have the most perfect sundecks for sunning in the summer. Our doormen are all so attentive, they know every resident's name and apt by heart and look out for us every step of the way.
My friends who come over are in absolute awe that I was able to do this - but I must warn, if you plan on buying, move quickly, in the past year alone, I've watched CV prices shoot up so dramatically, and it's mostly because a younger, fresher crowd is catching on to the same thing I did - from a value standpoint, this is the BEST location in all of Brooklyn if you spend most of your time in the city. I literally walk out of my apartment and grab a taxi on the service road of the Brooklyn Bridge, and in less than 2 minutes, I'm in downtown. Or catching a cab home at night, when I give the option of the Manhattan Bridge as well and the exit literally puts you in front of the CV buildings, the cab driver always thanks me! THey generally do not like going too far into Brooklyn because they do not get a fare back, but this is the easiest location to get to and from.
Seeing as how with Real Estate, specifically, NYC real estate, location is everything, CV is unbeatable. Walking into my apartment is like walking into a spacious loft that happens to have trees outside, manicured gardens, no noise, and yet space and beautiful city views. The co-op board has become much more difficult to pass, but that having been said, they have recently changed management and things are flowing very smoothly.
I urge anyone with a doubt in their mind to come and see an open house one day..it certainly changed my mind!

Posted by: guest at April 22, 2008 4:56 PM